Get Full Essay

1. The author of the book looks at the situation from many different angles. I think that he/she does knowledge that Israel was the first to use arms, but suggests she was justified in doing so because the Arab states, especially Egypt, were directly aggressive towards her.
The Author states that Egypt closing the gulf of Aquaba was a direct act of aggression, and suggests future violence towards Israel, probably using

towards Israel, probably using arms. Had Israel not defended herself so early on, she might have been defeated by the Arab states that surrounded her.

The author say: “it comes down to whether you think Israel was justified in attacking Egypt when and how she did”. This shows that he/she does blame Israel for staring the actual fighting. However, the author suggests that this was in self-defence rather than an act of aggression. Although the Author does place the entire blame on any one particular party, he/she suggests that Egypt was the first to commit an act of aggression, and therefore holds more of the blame than the other countries.

2. The cartoon suggests that the Israelis had no hope of remaining in Israel, because the Arab states around her (represented by the cannons with the names of the states written on them in Arabic) were united in their plight to remove her from the Middle East. The fact that the states are represented by cannons suggests that the Arabian countries would probably go about removing Israel by force.

The cartoon seems to suggest that whatever happens the Jew will drown: Israel will fail. Either the cannons are fired (the Arabic states attack) and Israel will be forced to leave, or Israel will walk the plank (leave by themselves) sensing the impending defeat that they would face. The Jew is wearing a swimming costume which suggests that he knows he will end up in the water.

This cartoon was published in an Arab newspaper and is therefore likely to be very biased. The caricature of the Jew shows the Israelis to be fat, probably signifying greed, ugly and unwanted. Although this cartoon is useful in telling us that Arabic view of the Jews it is not accurate in predicting what actually happened.

3. Both sources C and D suggest that the Middle East did not hold the entire responsibility for the war.

Source C depicts both a USA representative and a USSR representative supplying the middles east with arms, which they did in fact do. It suggests that the USA and USSR were causing trouble, and Israel and the Arab states only had the means to fight due to their respective arms suppliers. The cartoon suggests that instead of the two powers helping their allies, as they had probably intended to, they were just ‘stirring up trouble’ (represented by the cauldron).

Source D says that U-Thant was to blame for the war, because he did not stand up to Egypt In the early stages. It suggests that The Un caved in too easily to the pressure Egypt put it under, and did not fulfil its purpose as a peace-keeping organisation. It suggests that peace could have been gained in the early stages when the relationships between the countries were still very unstable.

Source D is probably more reliable for getting an unbiased overview of the situation, because source C is an artist’s impression, and could be exaggerated. It was also published in a British magazine and is therefore likely to be bias.

The sources do agree that the Middle East was not entirely to blame for the war, but both use different example of where the powers went wrong in their efforts to keep the peace.

4. Source E is suggesting that any military action Egypt might take against Israel, it is justified in doing so, as it is defending its Arab neighbour, Syria, rather than being aggressive towards Israel. However, Sources F and G are both very aggressive towards Israel. They suggest that any military action taken against Israel is aggressive, rather than in self-defence.

The sources, although all from Arab leaders, none of the leaders are from the same Arab state. Sources F and G do contradict source E in saying that they are acting aggressively rather than in self-defence, as source E suggests. The two latter sources do not, however, prove the former false because they are all taken from different nations.

As it was Egyptian troops that moved across Sinai source E is more relevant. However, Egypt needed to protect their reputation, and as it was their troops who advanced, it is likely to have a spin on it, so that Egypt is portrayed in a more positive light.

5. Both sources are of use to a historian in studying the causes of the 6-day war. However, source I is probably more reliable than source H. Both Sources are primary evidence, which would be very helpful to the historian. Source H is potentially biased because it is written by an Israeli, whose sympathies are likely to fall towards his own country and perhaps cause him to exaggerate the atrocities committed by Egypt.

Source I is a photograph of the destroyed Egyptian tanks towards the end of the 6-day war. Source I is almost certainly not biased because of it being a photograph. The source does, however, only shows the destruction of the Egyptian tanks rather than both sides.

6. The sources differ in where they place the blame for the 6-day war. Both are probably biased, as they are published by two of the countries involved in the conflict.

Source J claims that Egypt moving their troops across Sinai was aggressive and uncalled for, as Israel had no wish to start a war. Source K, however, claims that Israel was manipulating the media of her western allies to convince the world she wanted peace, while she actually had every intention of fighting, and this forced Egypt to move her troops into Sinai.

Egypt appear to be very consistent in their argument that they acting in self-defence. Source E (see Q4) backs up source K. However, Egypt had no evidence to prove their claims, and it very much appears they used the guise of self-defence to be aggressive.

7. I don’t think it is possible to place the blame on any one party. As source C suggests, the involvement of other world powers probably caused trouble more than peace, which The USA and USSR intended.

I do agree with source B in that Israel had little hope and that, metaphorically speaking, all cannons were pointed at her. This is backed up by sources F and G. However, Israel fought cleverly, contrary to what sources B, F and G probably expected.

I think that Israel knew that had to plan their attack/defence cleverly, because they were vastly out-numbered. Although in many of the sources Israel is defended (sources A, H and J) none of them suggest that Israel expected to come out of war as well as they did, while many of the Sources (sources B, F, G and K) sympathizing with the Arabs do suggest that the Arabic states expected to regain The land of Israel.

The boast of the Arab nations expected to regain Israel suggests that they were the first aggressors. In sources F and G directly say that they want to get rid of Israel and will use aggression to achieve their aim.

I think that, like source A says, Although Israel were the first to use arms, The Arab states were the aggressors and were responsible for starting the war, Egypt the most aggressive of the Arab states.

8. There is a lot of disagreement over who is to blame for the day war because it is a very complicated issue with many parties involved. For example, the main counties involved would not be so much of a threat to each other had other counties not been arming them. It is hard to say if they were a threat to each other because of the arms (in which case the arms suppliers would be to blame for the war) or if they were a threat to each other because they themselves were aggressive towards each other (in which case it would be the countries themselves that were to blame).

It is also hard to know how far to trace to conflict back to find the original aggressor because the land of Israel has been fought over for many years. Some might say that when deciding who caused the 6-day war one should only look at the parties immediately involved. However, the conflict could be traced back to when England and France first divided the land, sparking the arguments of whom the land rightful owners were. Because the conflict can be traced back so far, there is no definite starting point to it, which also makes it hard to place the blame on any one particular party.